Chiassoni’s approach is only useful for accurately identifying the primary, secondary, and tertiary directives that judges adopt in their decisions, as he does not present parameters for evaluating the correctness of the use of these directives. This lack of evaluation criteria stems from Chiassoni’s skeptical theoretical assumptions about judicial interpretation.
(more…)-
Secondary and tertiary directives for legal interpretation identified by Pierluigi Chiassoni
Secondary directives
Chiassoni (2020, p. 162) identifies three groups of secondary directives, which hierarchize the use of primary directives: 1) selective directives; 2) procedural directives; 3) and preferential directives.
(more…) -
Primary directives for legal interpretation identified by Pierluigi Chiassoni
Primary directives (Chiassoni, 2020, p. 133) indicate to the interpreter how to proceed in assigning at least one meaning to a provision. Chiassoni (2020, p. 134) lists twenty-eight primary directives grouped into six categories:
1) directives for linguistic interpretation;
2) directives for (pseudo)psychological interpretation;
3) directives for authoritative interpretation;
4) directives for teleological interpretation;
5) directives for systematic interpretation;
6) and directives for heteronomous interpretation.
(more…) -
Directives for legal interpretation according to Pierluigi Chiassoni
Chiassoni (2020, p. 157-158) argues that the expression “interpretative argument” can refer to at least three different things: 1) a major premise of a syllogism; 2) a model of argument; and 3) a concrete argument.
(more…)